Iraq war "substantially" increased threat of terrorism for the UK

[NWO Sentryman]

What Virus said.

To put it this way, suppose the US intervened in Bosnia in 94 to stop the war. They decide to use B2 Spirits, F-1X fighters and A-10 Ground Attack Aircraft to break the Croat and Serb militaries. Is that terrorism?

 

[SezMe]

I think it was pretty obvious that Virus meant that terrorizing the civilian population was not a war aim of the coalition and that they took steps to prevent it and to punish it

Trying to pretend otherwise is, IMHO, to replace reasoned argument with pedantic sophistry.

Pathetic x2!

I think it is pretty obvious that what Virus said was what he meant. He has not retracted it.

Trying to pretend otherwise is, well, pretending.

Pathetic (x2)² The patheticness grows geometrically! Look out!

 

[willhaven]

I think an alternate 2010 in which Hussein would be still in power, along with his crazy sons, would have been just as much a threat to the world than the invasion allegedly fueling terrorism.

Nearly 4,500 US service members would still be alive.

 

[Virus]

I'd like to put forward Dinesh D'Souza's argument for intervention in Iraq:

 

[theprestige]

I think it is pretty obvious that what Virus said was what he meant. He has not retracted it.

He has, on the other hand, endorsed Giz's interpretation.

So now you can proceed with the discussion--perhaps by addressing Giz's argument, which Virus asserts is substantially the same as his own.

 

[geni]

I think an alternate 2010 in which Hussein would be still in power, along with his crazy sons, would have been just as much a threat to the world than the invasion allegedly fueling terrorism.

Post Gulf war 1 Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone outside Iraq. His idiology had no traction and he no longer had the army to cause problems for his neighbours.

 

[geni]

The international forces didn't terrorize anyone. The Islamic and Baathist terrorists did.

Baathist terrorists? Err only group I can think of offhand would be the Democratic Revolutionary Movement for the Liberation of Arabistan and we killed them off in the 80s.

We fought and killed them and taught Iraqis how to fight and kill them.

Iraqis knew how to kill islamists. Saddam had views about such people.

False pretenses? The guy had a long history of using and seeking more WMD. He had a long history of deceiving, lying and attempting to bribe inspectors. Only a fool would consider the guy kosher on WMD.

I think at this point it is safe to conclude that he didn't have any chemical weapons.

 

[Virus]

Post Gulf war 1 Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone outside Iraq. His idiology had no traction and he no longer had the army to cause problems for his neighbours.

Wrong. Saddam funded Hamas. Saddam gave Abu Nidal a government salary and safe house. Saddam shielded Abu Abbas and Abdul Rahman Yassin. Saddam allowed Al Zarquari into the country. Saddam tried to kill George Bush snr.

Baathist terrorists? Err only group I can think of offhand would be the Democratic Revolutionary Movement for the Liberation of Arabistan and we killed them off in the 80s.

Well off-hand I can think of two:

The Fedayeen Saddam. An extremely violent terrorist organization set up by the Baath Party to harass Coalition troops. There's also Al-Baath.

Iraqis knew how to kill islamists. Saddam had views about such people.

Saddam became increasingly Islamist as he descended into madness. Also, don't be fooled by the so-called "secularism" of Arab dictators. If they think they can benefit by co-operating with Islamists, they'll do it. Case in point: Syria's Basshar Assad.

I think at this point it is safe to conclude that he didn't have any chemical weapons.

I agree. Two points however; The inspections program would never have found them even if they did exist as weapon inspectors require the co-operation of the government. The Iraqi government set up a ministry specifically to deceive weapon inspectors. To certify Iraq free of WMD would require a military occupation.

Secondly, WMD were only one of many reasons why the regime had to be deposed.

 

[Virus]

More Baathist Militias in Iraq: (from wikipedia)

* The Return (al-Awda)

* General Command of the Armed Forces, Resistance and Liberation in Iraq

* Iraqi Popular Army

* New Return

* Patriotic Front

* Political Media Organ of the Ba‘ath Party (Jihaz al-Iilam al-Siasi lil hizb al-Baath)

* Popular Resistance for the Liberation of Iraq

* Al-Abud Network

 

[geni]

Wrong. Saddam funded Hamas. Saddam gave Abu Nidal a government salary and safe house. Saddam shielded Abu Abbas and Abdul Rahman Yassin. Saddam allowed Al Zarquari into the country. Saddam tried to kill George Bush snr.

Hamas are not Baathist and have other funding sources. Abu Nidal was an 80s leftover, dito Abu Abbas. Abdul Rahman Yasin doesn't exactly appear to have got on with saddam. George Bush snr was kinda trying to overthrow Saddam at the time

Well off-hand I can think of two:

[qimg]http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2003/03/26/image546290g.jpg[/qimg]
The Fedayeen Saddam. An extremely violent terrorist organization set up by the Baath Party to harass Coalition troops.

Compared to the US marines an extremely violent terrorist organization set up by the US to harass whoever it doesn't like this week? The Fedayeen Saddam as set up by Saddam were a legitimate military unit.

There's also Al-Baath.

The Baath? 1960s arab nationalist movement who's only remains are the nominal idiologies of iraq pre-invasion and syria?

Saddam became increasingly Islamist as he descended into madness. Also, don't be fooled by the so-called "secularism" of Arab dictators. If they think they can benefit by co-operating with Islamists, they'll do it. Case in point: Syria's Basshar Assad.

However that doesn't change the fact that Saddam vied islamists as a threat to his rule and reacted much as you would expect.

I agree. Two points however; The inspections program would never have found them even if they did exist as weapon inspectors require the co-operation of the government.

Not true. We found that uranium enrichment plant in iran without their cooperation.

The Iraqi government set up a ministry specifically to deceive weapon inspectors. To certify Iraq free of WMD would require a military occupation.

Not really relivant.

Secondly, WMD were only one of many reasons why the regime had to be deposed.

The regime did not have to be deposed. There are very few things that have to be done on an international scale.

 

[geni]

More Baathist Militias in Iraq: (from wikipedia)

You are aware that there is a difference between militants and terrorists right? Or would you consider "A well regulated group of terrorists, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." to be a legitimate rewording of the second amemendment?

 

[JihadJane]

The Iraqi government set up a ministry specifically to deceive weapon inspectors. To certify Iraq free of WMD would require a military occupation.

Not really relivant.

It may be relevant to note, however, that the US government set up an intelligence organization specifically to deceive everybody!

 

[Virus]

Hamas are not Baathist and have other funding sources.

Goalpost. You said "Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone" yet he funded a terrorist organization who were a threat. Something he was explicitly forbidden to do by UN resolutions.

Abu Nidal was an 80s leftover, dito Abu Abbas. Abdul Rahman Yasin doesn't exactly appear to have got on with saddam. George Bush snr was kinda trying to overthrow Saddam at the time.

You said "after the gulf war". He was harboring terrorists after he was ejected from Kuwait which he was explicitly forbidden to do by UN resolutions.

Compared to the US marines an extremely violent terrorist organization set up by the US to harass whoever it doesn't like this week?

Oh I see. You've got America Derangement Syndrome and you want to play pointless "you are" word games.

The Fedayeen Saddam as set up by Saddam were a legitimate military unit.

So the Marines are terrorists but the Fedayeen Saddam, who beheaded 200 women and nailed their heads to their door, are a legitimate military unit.

The Baath? 1960s arab nationalist movement who's only remains are the nominal idiologies of iraq pre-invasion and syria?

Al-Baath are Baath party loyalists who went underground and conducted terrorist operations after the regime was overthrown.

However that doesn't change the fact that Saddam vied islamists as a threat to his rule and reacted much as you would expect.

So? You're talking about a completely different set of circumstances. Iraq is a now a democratic republic and the only one in the region. Done deal. You spread slander and said America terrorizes Iraq. No, the terrorists do that. America protected Iraq and taught the democracy how to fight terrorists.

Not true. We found that uranium enrichment plant in iran without their cooperation.

Saddam ejected the weapon inspectors.

Not really relivant.

It's relevant that he never intended to play ball with weapon inspectors.

The regime did not have to be deposed.

Well, the alternative would be indefinite continuation of the sanctions which allowed Saddam to build palaces and pay off crooks in the French and Russian parliaments while the economy collapsed into shambles. All on top of a quarter of the world's oil supplies.

There are very few things that have to be done on an international scale.

Since?

 

[Virus]

You are aware that there is a difference between militants and terrorists right? Or would you consider "A well regulated group of terrorists, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." to be a legitimate rewording of the second amemendment?

Huh?

 

[geni]

Goalpost. You said "Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone" yet he funded a terrorist organization who were a threat. Something he was explicitly forbidden to do by UN resolutions.

Well since the group in question caused even more trouble post saddam do you consider on that basis at least the iraq war failed?

You said "after the gulf war". He was harboring terrorists after he was ejected from Kuwait which he was explicitly forbidden to do by UN resolutions.

Saudi arabia was harbouring Idi Amin for decades. Leftovers end up in all sorts of odd places. It's not important.

Oh I see. You've got America Derangement Syndrome and you want to play pointless "you are" word games.



So the Marines are terrorists but the Fedayeen Saddam, who beheaded 200 women and nailed their heads to their door, are a legitimate military unit.

Either the the US marines are terrorists or Fedayeen Saddam are a legitimate millitry unit.

Al-Baath are Baath party loyalists who went underground and conducted terrorist operations after the regime was overthrown.

So a group that wasn't around under Saddam. Thats getting despirate.

So? You're talking about a completely different set of circumstances. Iraq is a now a democratic republic and the only one in the region. Done deal.

Dude. It's Iraq. Nothing is a done deal.

You spread slander and said America terrorizes Iraq.

No I didn't.

No, the terrorists do that. America protected Iraq and taught the democracy how to fight terrorists.

Thing is Iraq knew how to fight terrorists (mostly. The no fly zone gave them some problems).

Saddam ejected the weapon inspectors.

And let them back in.

It's relevant that he never intended to play ball with weapon inspectors.

Neither was the US. They were not meant to be spying for the US but thats life.

Well, the alternative would be indefinite continuation of the sanctions which allowed Saddam to build palaces and pay off crooks in the French and Russian parliaments while the economy collapsed into shambles. All on top of a quarter of the world's oil supplies.

Those would be Iraq's oil supplies.

Since?

About 5400 BC.

 

[geni]

Huh?

Most people do not consider Militias=terrorists. Heh australia had some militias back in the 1870s.

 

[Giz]

Either the the US marines are terrorists or Fedayeen Saddam are a legitimate millitry unit.

Yes of course, it's just so darn hard to draw a distinction between people who have rules of engagement and will be punished by their own side when they transgress them, and, those who behead 200 women and nail their heads on doors.

 

[geni]

Yes of course, it's just so darn hard to draw a distinction between people who have rules of engagement and will be punished by their own side when they transgress them, and, those who behead 200 women and nail their heads on doors.

Strangely yes. After all are you questioning the right of countries to carry out internal law enforcement as they see fit?

Saddam fedayeen met the criteria for privileged combatants. As a result they counted as legitimate targets for the US milllitry unless they surrendered. Equaly they were free to attack coalition forces.

In practice they were poorly trained and equipped light infantry with a seperate C&C structure from the main iraqi army.

 

[theprestige]

It may be relevant to note, however, that the US government set up an intelligence organization specifically to deceive everybody!

Am I supposed to be somehow shocked or outraged that governments engage in propaganda and counterintelligence? Last time I checked, these things were an important part of the government's job. They're certainly things I want my government to be actively and effectively engaged in, as a matter of principle and of policy.

So. Duly noted. How do you think it's relevant?

 

[funk de fino]

Saddam was no threat to the UK or the USA. He was covered. The whole thing was a folly. He is gone, which is a good thing, but the end does not always justify the means. And that comes from someone who served in Desert Storm.